[pnome]

"Antibiotics kill off antibiotic-vulnerable bacteria, leaving the originally relatively small number of antibiotic-resitant bacteria to multiply."

You do realize you just made the case for natural selection? So, you are saying that only the antibiotic resistant strains of, say, Staphylococcus survive. So those that do not have the resistance will die off. Until such time that all of our Staphylococcus is resistant to antibiotics.

Or are you trying to say that when "God" created the world, he made two kinds of Staphylococcus. One that was resistant to antibiotics, and one that was not.

As opposed to, you have a whole bunch of Staphylococcus and they are all being killed by antibiotics, until one or two are produced which carry a mutated gene for resistance. They breed, (because they are the only one's surviving) then pretty soon all you are left with are the offspring of the resistant newcomers.

Now, which is more likely to happen? God, or mutation? Further, which one can be proven and which one can't?

[Aquinasfan]

Or are you trying to say that when "God" created the world, he made two kinds of Staphylococcus. One that was resistant to antibiotics, and one that was not.

What does the evidence show? It doesn't show mutation and selection. As far as I know, the scientific evidence simply shows the killing off of particular kinds of bacteria by antibiotics.

I'm certain that God created the world from nothing, and that mankind has descended from its original parents, Adam and Eve. The rest is speculation, which can be informed by our observation of nature.

Now, which is more likely to happen? God, or mutation?

8-) God is the ultimate cause of everything (excluding the evil chosen by men and the pure spirits). Mutation may be the proximate cause in this case. But that's not my understanding of the evidence.

Further, which one can be proven and which one can't?

Good question. What evidence is their for your position?